Yes but, do we really need CASA.
There seems to be a lack of intellectual rigour here.
Reading through the thread I see CASA being responsible for:
Boeing 747 overshooting a runway in SE Asia
WestWind running out of fuel and options in the south Pacific.
Metro hitting a hill below LSALT in North Queensland.
Citation jet hitting the ground when reported 6000 ft at Mareeba.
Chieftan double engine failure in South Australia
Reading through the thread I see CASA being responsible for:
Boeing 747 overshooting a runway in SE Asia
WestWind running out of fuel and options in the south Pacific.
Metro hitting a hill below LSALT in North Queensland.
Citation jet hitting the ground when reported 6000 ft at Mareeba.
Chieftan double engine failure in South Australia
The ATSB Lockhart River Report also attributed a number of contributing (and other) factors to CASA:-
CONTRIBUTING FACTORS RELATING TO THE CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY'S PROCESSES
- CASA did not provide sufficient guidance to its inspectors to enable them to effectively and consistently evaluate several key aspects of operator management systems. These aspects included evaluating organisational structure and staff resources, evaluating the suitability of key personnel, evaluating organisational change, and evaluating risk management processes. (Safety Issue)
- CASA did not require operators to conduct structured and/or comprehensive risk assessments, or conduct such assessments itself, when evaluating applications for the initial issue or subsequent variation of an Air Operator's Certificate. (Safety Issue)
OTHER FACTORS RELATING TO TRANSAIR PROCESSES [RELATED TO REGULATORY OVERSIGHT]
- Transair's flight crew proficiency checking program had significant limitations, such as the frequency of proficiency checks and the lack of appropriate approvals of many of the pilots conducting proficiency checks. (Safety Issue)
- Although CASA released a discussion paper in 2000, and further development had occurred since then, there was no regulatory requirement for initial or recurrent crew resource management training for RPT operators. (Safety Issue)
- There was no regulatory requirement for flight crew undergoing a type rating on a multi-crew aircraft to be trained in procedures for crew incapacitation and crew coordination, including allocation of pilot tasks, crew cooperation and use of checklists. This was required by ICAO Annex 1 to which Australia had notified a difference. (Safety Issue)
- The regulatory requirements concerning crew qualifications during the conduct of instrument approaches in a multi-crew RPT operation was [sic] potentially ambiguous as to whether all crew members were required to be qualified to conduct the type of approach being carried out. (Safety Issue)
- CASA's guidance material provided to operators about the structure and content of an operations manual was not as comprehensive as that provided by ICAO in areas such as multi-crew procedures and stabilised approach criteria. (Safety Issue)
- Although CASA released a discussion paper in 2000, and further development and publicity had occurred since then, there was no regulatory requirement for RPT operators to have a safety management system. (Safety Issue)
- There was no regulatory requirement for instrument approach charts to include coloured contours to depict terrain. This was required by a standard in ICAO Annex 4 in certain situations. Australia had not notified a difference to the standard. (Safety Issue)
- There was no regulatory requirement for multi-crew RPT aircraft to be fitted with a serviceable autopilot. (Safety Issue)
OTHER FACTORS RELATING TO CASA PROCESSES
- CASA's oversight of Transair, in relation to the approval of Air Operator's Certificate variations and the conduct of surveillance, was sometimes inconsistent with CASA's policies, procedures and guidelines.
- CASA did not have a systematic process for determining the relative risk levels of airline operators. (Safety Issue)
- CASA's process for evaluating an operations manual did not consider the useability of the manual, particularly manuals in electronic format. (Safety Issue)
- CASA's process for accepting an instrument approach did not involve a systematic risk assessment of pilot workload and other potential hazards, including activation of a ground proximity warning system. (Safety Issue)
CASA certainly attracted some criticism in that one too, and its acceptance of the recommendations made seem to suggest that some of it's failed regulatory processes contributed to the outcome of that event.
Confusion on interpretation of CASA fuel requirements will most likely be an issue when (if ever) the ATSB issues the Norfolk Island ditching report.
IMHO, the facts from just a few of the mishap events you refer to seem to support the 'intellectual rigor' shown for the most part on this thread. CASA obviously isn't (and can't be) 100% responsible for the events referred to, but it's continued lack of ability (22 years worth, in fact, maybe even longer) of being a model regulatory authority which is able to effectively produce a set of clear and readily understood regulations, together with its take-no-prisoners approach (refer to various of the posts above, in particular, those concerning show-cause), seem to suggest the responsibility for the quoted mishap events doesn't solely reside with the operators, and that CASA has some responsibility for the unfortunate outcomes referred to.
But, I certainly support your right to disagree.
Last edited by SIUYA; 3rd Nov 2010 at 09:23. Reason: typos, but probably didn't get them all.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Blackhand, how is Sargent Shultz going up there anyway ? Settle into the CAA ok ?
Heard that the dust up between Shultz and MQ was interesting, hence MQ`s demise from the role of DCEO in AUS. !
Heard that the dust up between Shultz and MQ was interesting, hence MQ`s demise from the role of DCEO in AUS. !
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As the antagonist in this CASA denigration one should accept the puerile thoughts of all and sundry.
CACTUSJACK
I am perplexed by your ambiguous missive.
JIM IRWIN
I am not alluding that PNG CASA is the epitome of regulators rather that the suite of rules in use is superior to Austalian regs.
SIUYA
I do not subscribe to this paradigm of systemic failures
this merely spreads the blame.
All of the examples you
give are pilot error and incorrect command decisions.
Cheers
BH
CACTUSJACK
I am perplexed by your ambiguous missive.
JIM IRWIN
I am not alluding that PNG CASA is the epitome of regulators rather that the suite of rules in use is superior to Austalian regs.
SIUYA
I do not subscribe to this paradigm of systemic failures
this merely spreads the blame.
All of the examples you
give are pilot error and incorrect command decisions.
Cheers
BH
I do not subscribe to this paradigm of systemic failures
this merely spreads the blame.
All of the examples you
give are pilot error and incorrect command decisions.
this merely spreads the blame.
All of the examples you
give are pilot error and incorrect command decisions.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The finding of "pilot error' is too often a convenient way of avoiding a proper investigation and a proper finding.
Did we not learn anything from the Erebus investigation?
There is usually a reason why the "pilot error" occurred (if there was one), and often factors outsde the aeroplane are significant. There is usually a chain of significant events.
Did we not learn anything from the Erebus investigation?
There is usually a reason why the "pilot error" occurred (if there was one), and often factors outsde the aeroplane are significant. There is usually a chain of significant events.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The (lost) voice of reason
The sublime and the ridiculous are often so nearly related, that it is difficult to class them separately. One step above the sublime, makes the ridiculous; and one step above the ridiculous, makes the sublime again". T. Paine. The Age of Reason. 1793.
When I kicked this thread off, it was only with the intention of trying to see if it were feasible to reestablish 'the voice of reason'. You can't blame CASA for a hole in your franga or that the cockpit seat hasn't got neat little slot for your wallet. There are some bloody good folks in the organisation, although they seem to be muzzled, or made to tow the 'party' line (like it or not).
What I hope for is a legally safe, balanced approach to the way their business in conducted.
We know there have been some God awful mistakes made, leading to failed prosecution, rather than negotiated safety based outcomes.
There are countless anecdotes of meddling, operational inconsistency, subjective personalized interpretations of the rotten regulations, purblind mindless adherence to the 'letter' of the law (in one man's opinion).
These issues are matters of respect that the administrator has to address. No one wants administrative or legal anarchy, especially of the type we currently endure. It is unsupportable.
The problem, for my two bob's worth is, that there is clear conflict of interest between 'enforcement', administration and safety action. Add this to an often bloody minded determination not to enforce the law, but the authority of the Authority. (or it's policies).
As some one posted, sadly, "they have lost their way", lost the respect and thus the unstinting cooperation of the industry. IMHO it is this which needs to change first. We can manage with crappy laws, but not with bad administration of the industry.
When I kicked this thread off, it was only with the intention of trying to see if it were feasible to reestablish 'the voice of reason'. You can't blame CASA for a hole in your franga or that the cockpit seat hasn't got neat little slot for your wallet. There are some bloody good folks in the organisation, although they seem to be muzzled, or made to tow the 'party' line (like it or not).
What I hope for is a legally safe, balanced approach to the way their business in conducted.
We know there have been some God awful mistakes made, leading to failed prosecution, rather than negotiated safety based outcomes.
There are countless anecdotes of meddling, operational inconsistency, subjective personalized interpretations of the rotten regulations, purblind mindless adherence to the 'letter' of the law (in one man's opinion).
These issues are matters of respect that the administrator has to address. No one wants administrative or legal anarchy, especially of the type we currently endure. It is unsupportable.
The problem, for my two bob's worth is, that there is clear conflict of interest between 'enforcement', administration and safety action. Add this to an often bloody minded determination not to enforce the law, but the authority of the Authority. (or it's policies).
As some one posted, sadly, "they have lost their way", lost the respect and thus the unstinting cooperation of the industry. IMHO it is this which needs to change first. We can manage with crappy laws, but not with bad administration of the industry.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Saudi Arabia
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah Kharon...a voice of reason,Yup you are.
Have to agree with you mate, (whoever or where ever you are?)...There are, (where?somewhere) some wonderful people in CASA.
I think back over my 45 odd years in the aviation industry in OZ. As a young sprog chief pilot way back when, the Russes (especially him), the Curlewises, the Sly's, the ?? memory fails me. How we respected them...they shoved, cojoled, mentored, counciled and were always there if you needed advice,they lead you down the safety path, and stomped all over you if you didnt.
Those kind of people are still there, but muzzled by incompetent idiots, who favour prescriptive B...**** over common sense, and call it a safety outcome.
A tick in the box is more important than an actual safety outcome.
In todays world I spend more time auditing paper work trying to protect the company from malicious attack ( is the tick in the right box?, are the dates right?, are the crews additions correct?) I spend more time trying to protect the companies AOC, and by default myself, because I'm the one who will go to jail if someone makes a mistake, than training, mentoring, and supervising my pilots.CASA HAS lost its way, a tick in the box is more important now than competence.
I have just promelgated a direction to our staff that there is to be no communication with CASA without our legal representatives present. Our ops manual now carries a disclaimer, that notwithstanding, some of the material contained within this publication is required by CASA and the Company will not be held responsible for material required by them.
The work load increases, my company recognised that the 30 year old aircraft can not go on forever and introduced something new. CASA's response??..MY GOD!!!...it has jet engines!!!...Hmmm/...how can we make some money out of this??Hmmm...Jet? Hmmm = Rich!!!...Yeah!!! make em put reg 217 in place, Reg 217??? written for an airline such as Qantas or large operation of a single type aircraft, totally impractical and not cost effective for a single aircraft. So the safety outcome?? two to three hundred bucks an hour on the operating cost and a modern, quantum leap in safety becomes uncompetative.
Sad thing guys, an owner comes with a brand new modern jet type to manage and find some work for...adds up the cost to put it on the aoc, etc...etc
TOO hard...TOO expensive....TOO much Bu...sh...t!....leave it on the US register and just operate it private( still in our airspace, just without oversight).....aint it sad the fare paying public is condemed to 30 to 40 year old machinery because CASA want a buck or bul...st
Have to agree with you mate, (whoever or where ever you are?)...There are, (where?somewhere) some wonderful people in CASA.
I think back over my 45 odd years in the aviation industry in OZ. As a young sprog chief pilot way back when, the Russes (especially him), the Curlewises, the Sly's, the ?? memory fails me. How we respected them...they shoved, cojoled, mentored, counciled and were always there if you needed advice,they lead you down the safety path, and stomped all over you if you didnt.
Those kind of people are still there, but muzzled by incompetent idiots, who favour prescriptive B...**** over common sense, and call it a safety outcome.
A tick in the box is more important than an actual safety outcome.
In todays world I spend more time auditing paper work trying to protect the company from malicious attack ( is the tick in the right box?, are the dates right?, are the crews additions correct?) I spend more time trying to protect the companies AOC, and by default myself, because I'm the one who will go to jail if someone makes a mistake, than training, mentoring, and supervising my pilots.CASA HAS lost its way, a tick in the box is more important now than competence.
I have just promelgated a direction to our staff that there is to be no communication with CASA without our legal representatives present. Our ops manual now carries a disclaimer, that notwithstanding, some of the material contained within this publication is required by CASA and the Company will not be held responsible for material required by them.
The work load increases, my company recognised that the 30 year old aircraft can not go on forever and introduced something new. CASA's response??..MY GOD!!!...it has jet engines!!!...Hmmm/...how can we make some money out of this??Hmmm...Jet? Hmmm = Rich!!!...Yeah!!! make em put reg 217 in place, Reg 217??? written for an airline such as Qantas or large operation of a single type aircraft, totally impractical and not cost effective for a single aircraft. So the safety outcome?? two to three hundred bucks an hour on the operating cost and a modern, quantum leap in safety becomes uncompetative.
Sad thing guys, an owner comes with a brand new modern jet type to manage and find some work for...adds up the cost to put it on the aoc, etc...etc
TOO hard...TOO expensive....TOO much Bu...sh...t!....leave it on the US register and just operate it private( still in our airspace, just without oversight).....aint it sad the fare paying public is condemed to 30 to 40 year old machinery because CASA want a buck or bul...st
Regs, regs, regs.... ad nauseam
The 22 yr re-write of the re-write of the amended amendments to add to your exposition(?) which will have to have exemptions...exclusions and etc...etc ...etc..blah blah. Interspersed with a few 'worlds firsts' rushed thru..
Its not a refusal.!.. its a cunning plan for continued employment in the sinecure, the growth of staff numbers and the building of an empire.
WTF has "safety" got to do with it.? Bureaucratic complexitization just makes it LESS safe.
And on another point, made elsewhere. EVERY pilot and budding pilot should be briefed on.."Talking to the Regulator 101"
1. DONT EVER do it alone. Get a witness,take notes, tape deck, video... anything, because some of these buggers have an agenda and you must have a self protection program to CYA, if you do speak.
2. Or better still, exercise yr right to remain silent.
When these people come knocking.. it really is time we told them to piss off and shut the door.
But even that can have its repercussions...
I did have a CASA person come into my hangar one day; no name given , no ID shown, no request for permission to enter the premises, no business stated (all requirements) Launched into some aggressive Qs about someone elses aircraft parts. I requested that he absent himself from my presence and premises.
Next week I had an "investigator" (sic- very, very sick/a real head case ) come to our house and throw a Summons at my wife. I was away at the time. It was an intended stress inducing exercise for me, and a nice day in the country for him.
The summons was for 'Threatening a Commonwealth Officer'.
I had been alone in the hangar... and unfortunately for him ( and me!), also solo, so he couldnt have a back up mate for his BS story. Never turned up at court.!
Must be in their job descriptions,.. How to piss up taxpayers time and money for nil result. What lovely people they are.
And at what great cost to the Industry and the country.
The revolution WILL come eventually. (I live in hope.)
Its not a refusal.!.. its a cunning plan for continued employment in the sinecure, the growth of staff numbers and the building of an empire.
WTF has "safety" got to do with it.? Bureaucratic complexitization just makes it LESS safe.
And on another point, made elsewhere. EVERY pilot and budding pilot should be briefed on.."Talking to the Regulator 101"
1. DONT EVER do it alone. Get a witness,take notes, tape deck, video... anything, because some of these buggers have an agenda and you must have a self protection program to CYA, if you do speak.
2. Or better still, exercise yr right to remain silent.
When these people come knocking.. it really is time we told them to piss off and shut the door.
But even that can have its repercussions...
I did have a CASA person come into my hangar one day; no name given , no ID shown, no request for permission to enter the premises, no business stated (all requirements) Launched into some aggressive Qs about someone elses aircraft parts. I requested that he absent himself from my presence and premises.
Next week I had an "investigator" (sic- very, very sick/a real head case ) come to our house and throw a Summons at my wife. I was away at the time. It was an intended stress inducing exercise for me, and a nice day in the country for him.
The summons was for 'Threatening a Commonwealth Officer'.
I had been alone in the hangar... and unfortunately for him ( and me!), also solo, so he couldnt have a back up mate for his BS story. Never turned up at court.!
Must be in their job descriptions,.. How to piss up taxpayers time and money for nil result. What lovely people they are.
And at what great cost to the Industry and the country.
The revolution WILL come eventually. (I live in hope.)
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Lisbon
Posts: 995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
blackhand, such beautiful wording you use. Sorry to cause you any angst or confusion with my superfluous missive -
John Bromley.
CACTUSJACK
I am perplexed by your ambiguous missive.
I am perplexed by your ambiguous missive.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: on the edge
Posts: 823
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SIUYA
Ad hominem comes to mind - but you already knew that.
CACTUSJACK
As long as I didn't amplify your tarry at this convoluted discourse - hamanas tu mus stap long mi.
So........let me guess. You're a member of the Flat Earth Society too, aren't you blackhand?
CACTUSJACK
As long as I didn't amplify your tarry at this convoluted discourse - hamanas tu mus stap long mi.
